• by Wendy Davis , February 13, 2026

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld Oracle's $115 million settlement of a class-action privacy lawsuit over the alleged collection and sale of web users' data.

In an unsigned ruling, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California did not abuse his discretion when he approved the deal.

Friday's ruling came in a case dating to 2022, when privacy advocates including Michael Katz-Lacabe of The Center for Human Rights and Privacy, and University of Maryland professor Jennifer Golbeck sued Oracle. They alleged that the company tracked people with a variety of online technologies -- including cookies, device identifiers and widgets -- and combines data about people's web activity with other information purchased from outside brokers.

Oracle agreed to settle the matter in July 2024, soon after announcing plans to shut down its ad business.

The settlement called for distribution of the $115 million fund, minus attorneys' fees, to all U.S. residents whose personal information was collected by Oracle, or made available for use or sale through Oracle's ad platforms after August 19, 2018.

Soon after Oracle said it would resolve the suit, California resident Sarah Feldman urged U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California to reject the settlement.

Among other arguments, Feldman (who has opposed other class-action privacy settlements) said the $115 million figure was "grossly inadequate," noting that Meta Platforms agreed to a $650 million settlement for allegedly violating an Illinois biometric privacy law.

She also said the deal was unfair because it called for everyone in the U.S. to receive equal compensation but, according to her, California and Florida residents may have had more valuable claims.

Seeborg overruled the objections and approved the settlement in November 2024, following which Feldman appealed to the 9th Circuit. She argued the approval should be vacated and the case sent back to Seeborg for further analysis.

The appellate judges disagreed, writing that Seeborg did not abuse his discretion "in approving an allocation plan that would distribute settlement funds equally to all claimants."

It's not yet clear how much money individuals who submit claims will receive from the settlement.